Change in Windows 8 rules could clear the way for 7 inch tablets

Lower screen resolutions mean cheaper, and possibly smaller, tablets.

In a bid to give its hardware partners "greater design flexibility," Microsoft has cut the minimum screen specs needed to win a "Designed for Windows 8" logo. Previously requiring a 1366×768 screen, Windows 8 hardware can now be built with a 1024×768 display.

As reported by Ed Bott of ZDNet, Microsoft made the change to its certification requirements earlier this month. To get the Windows 8 logo on these low-resolution devices, OEMs must also include a clear disclaimer that the low screen resolution disables the "snap" feature that allows two Metro apps to run side-by-side.

During Windows 8's development Microsoft blogged that the operating system was designed for screens of about 10 inches and up. Those decisions likely reflect the company's consistent viewpoint that tablets are merely another kind of PC and are productivity devices just as much as they're consumption ones.

Since then, a number of successful sub-10 inch tablets have found varying degrees of success—the Google Nexus 7, the Kindle Fire HD, and of course, the iPad Mini. These devices have screens that are about 7 or 8 inches big, and accordingly low resolutions (1280×800 for the Android pair, 1024×768 for the Apple device).

These lower resolution tablets are cheaper than the 10 inch ones, and selling well. But it's a market that Windows 8 as Microsoft originally envisaged can't really enter. The new lower resolution could be a step toward remedying that.

61 Reader Comments

Right. But not 1280x720. No one has ever seen a display device - of any size - with that resolution. The 48 pixels of vertical between 720 and 768 are so absolutely critical to Windows 8 it simply can't function without them. Luckily no one has ever tried!

I don't see the point of this -- by the time there's a large number of compelling apps in the Windows Marketplace (IMO that's a long way from happening), either the ipad mini will be even cheaper, or high-res 7" screens will be cheaper. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be anything compelling, at all, about a 7" Windows RT tablet. And a low-res Windows Pro tablet just seems pointless.

thank gog. reading on a device that size is such a better experience. I either sit my Surface RT in my lap when reading or lay it flat on a desk. a lighter 7 inch tablet would be perfect for holding like an actual book.

I wonder if most of these tablets will run Windows RT or Windows 8 32-bit (with Atom processors)?

and how will OEMs market these vs Android and iPad mini? I can think of a few possible angles:

they'll make great companion devices for Windows 8 PCs. with the sync features--that will be greatly improved with Blue--you'll be able to pick up and continue where you left off (on your laptop/desktop).

Office Apps and Office Web Apps, but that doesn't sound too great on a 7 inch tablet. Metro versions of Word, Excel, and Power Point are sorely needed here.

schools and businesses could find these useful too as low-end devices.

Right. But not 1280x720. No one has ever seen a display device - of any size - with that resolution. The 48 pixels of vertical between 720 and 768 are so absolutely critical to Windows 8 it simply can't function without them. Luckily no one has ever tried!

This. I have a 720p projector on my htpc and it's not just the snap feature, some apps just refuse to run. I wound up switching it out for a 1280x800 one, works fine now. simply changing the labeling doesn't fix the underlying issue

Right. But not 1280x720. No one has ever seen a display device - of any size - with that resolution. The 48 pixels of vertical between 720 and 768 are so absolutely critical to Windows 8 it simply can't function without them. Luckily no one has ever tried!

Yep, I don't understand the choice. Not only is 720p still a common resolution for lots of hardware, it's a very common resolution for video.

I record tutorial videos for YouTube in 720p (1080p would make everything way too small at the size people normally view YouTube at). The stupid decision by MS to make, and now keep, 768 the minimum height means I still have to crop the screen whenever I record Windows 8.

Cropping isn't too bad in older versions of Windows -- you just make sure everything you want is kept within the frame -- but on Windows 8 parts of the UI are always full-screen, like the Start Screen. And while transitioning (e.g. from Start to Desktop or vice versa), they zoom out which makes crops obvious (e.g. because the top was cropped while the bottom not, to keep the taskbar fully visible) and look weird as cropped content comes into frame, and the transition isn't centred in the frame.

Right. But not 1280x720. No one has ever seen a display device - of any size - with that resolution. The 48 pixels of vertical between 720 and 768 are so absolutely critical to Windows 8 it simply can't function without them. Luckily no one has ever tried!

1024x768 is the minimum resolution for windows 8; and the defacto minimum size for metro apps in current mainstream devices; its what you have left from a 1366x768 screen after chopping 320px off for a sidebar app and 22px of buffer space between them. Any existing app should run fine out of the box on them while dropping the minimum height slightly will almost certainly break some that were designed around a single full screen instead of a vertically scrolling pane.

For those who missed it, the leaked build of Windows "Blue" has the ability to snap at resolutions less than 1366 horizontal. So snap should work on 1280x800 displays after the update, assuming MS doesn't remove that change.

You aren't going to compete against the Nexus 7, charging your partners $50+ for the OS package.

As I type this, Microcenter is selling the 32GB XPS 10 for $350. That's really cheap for what reviewers consider to be one of the better non- Surface Windows RT tabs. I can't imagine them getting much cheaper than that.

For those who missed it, the leaked build of Windows "Blue" has the ability to snap at resolutions less than 1366 horizontal. So snap should work on 1280x800 displays after the update, assuming MS doesn't remove that change.

unfortunately, while the blue leak does pack a LOT of improvement with respect to snapping (you can actually interact with the desktop!), 1280 is still not a supported res (it's the horizontal that matters). by allowing more than one snap, you can have an app with bigger than 320 but less than 1366 width, but the min horizontal system res is still 1366

Eh, I like Windows 8 enough to have taken a serious look at replacing my MBA with a Surface Pro (final verdict: not yet), but Microsoft has a larger problem, in my mind: higher resolutions.

Monitors are getting more pixel-dense now, and that includes desktop displays. As much as Microsoft tries, the category of "hybrid" devices is not going to take off if including a 1920x1080 screen means that you have to suddenly switch to 125% size for desktop, then drop back, then switch. While low-res displays are great for cheap units, what Microsoft really needs to solve is how to make the desktop work for hybrid devices. If that's the niche they're hoping to get into...they should probably work on getting that to work.

That being said, yeah, Metro apps work decently at many resolutions. Microsoft is really shooting for the low-end it seems. That's great for a company that wants to become the next beige box master...but if they want to out-Apple Apple, they need to attract high-end customers, too.

When Microsoft can adjust Windows dynamically to not only the resolution but also the screen size, then we'll have a Microsoft that can compete. To do that, maybe instead of saying "let's add MORE resolutions, they should issue guidance to limit them, and to approve a more limited amount of formats in order to ensure smooth scaling.

Any decent tablet nowadays has a >180 ppi screen. 1024x768 reeks of cheep leftover screens from two years ago.

That being said, what kind of a retarded OS cannot deal with arbitrary screen resolutions (provided those are high enough)?

Like the iPad mini has? Also, doesn't iOS have restrictions as to resolution? I'm not necessarily calling you out as some sort of fanboy, but I think it's only Android that can deal with arbitrary resolutions, and there are plenty of developers that hate Android for that, too.

Personally, this seems a sign of MS flailing still. You wouldn't think a company that can dominate a sector (or at least stay competitive) when it puts its mind to it would be capable of botching another sector over and over and over.

Boy, does this ever sound like a step back. 1024 x 768 was nice in a PS/2, but you had to buy an 8514 card to do it. 1080p is slowly taking over monitors except in cheap junk laptops (including some Thinkpads - shame on you Lenovo). 1024 x 768 is a 4:3 shape, isn't it? Doesn't that more describe something used as a reader than a video player?

Yeah, we need some low-resolution, cheap tablets to run Windows. And the Surface was intended to shame the PC makers by demonstrating how to make a quality device. So why does this standard invite some really cheap junk? Maybe Microsoft has already ordered it as the mini Surface! They have to follow Apple, right?

Any decent tablet nowadays has a >180 ppi screen. 1024x768 reeks of cheep leftover screens from two years ago.

That being said, what kind of a retarded OS cannot deal with arbitrary screen resolutions (provided those are high enough)?

Like the iPad mini has? Also, doesn't iOS have restrictions as to resolution?

Ah, yeah, the minipad. Hardly an example of a worthy product, sales notwithstanding.

Quote:

I'm not necessarily calling you out as some sort of fanboy, but I think it's only Android that can deal with arbitrary resolutions, and there are plenty of developers that hate Android for that, too.

Personally, this seems a sign of MS flailing still. You wouldn't think a company that can dominate a sector (or at least stay competitive) when it puts its mind to it would be capable of botching another sector over and over and over.

Yes, Android can and does. Also, no competent developer can hate an OS for giving them options.

Boy, does this ever sound like a step back. 1024 x 768 was nice in a PS/2, but you had to buy an 8514 card to do it. 1080p is slowly taking over monitors except in cheap junk laptops (including some Thinkpads - shame on you Lenovo). 1024 x 768 is a 4:3 shape, isn't it? Doesn't that more describe something used as a reader than a video player?

Yeah, we need some low-resolution, cheap tablets to run Windows. And the Surface was intended to shame the PC makers by demonstrating how to make a quality device. So why does this standard invite some really cheap junk? Maybe Microsoft has already ordered it as the mini Surface! They have to follow Apple, right?

Video plays just as well and looks the same on a 4:3 screen as it does on any other screen. Stop looking in areas where there is no picture.

I record tutorial videos for YouTube in 720p (1080p would make everything way too small at the size people normally view YouTube at). The stupid decision by MS to make, and now keep, 768 the minimum height means I still have to crop the screen whenever I record Windows 8.

Blaming Microsoft for your ignorance is so passé.

I disagree that "1080p would make everything way too small at the size people normally view YouTube at", but if that's really the only problem you have with it, you can just change the UI scaling to make everything on the screen bigger.